Date of Filing : 29/05/2013
Order No. 28 dt. 08/01/2018
The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant purchased a vehicle being no.WB 25B 6030 and the said vehicle was insured with o.p. insurance company and the policy was issued by o.p. being policy no.3373/00342267/000/01 and the policy was in force from 30.4.12 to 29.4.13. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.28,964/-. During the subsistence of the policy the vehicle met with an accident on 30.4.12 and the people of the locality became agitated and damaged the vehicle in extensive manner. The said fact was informed to Barasat P.S. Because of the said damage the vehicle of the complainant was required to be repaired and after repairing of the said vehicle the complainant claimed the amount from o.p. The complainant was assured by o.p. that after repairing of the vehicle if the amount is claimed the same will be allowed by o.p. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant repaired the vehicle and submitted the claim. After receiving the claim of the complainant, the o.p. insurance company provided a cheque to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- which was returned to o.p. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for payment of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/-
The o.p. contested this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations of the complaint. It was stated that the policy was issued in favour of the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing regn. no.WB 25B 6030 (bus of root no.81). The complainant alleged that due to an accident on 30.4.12 the vehicle had been damaged. The o.p. appointed an IRDA licensed independent surveyor and the surveyor cum loss assessor opined that the admissible amount for the damage was Rs.25,000/- though the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the repairing of the vehicle. there was no deficiency in service and the liability of the insurance company is always subject to terms and conditions of the policy . the o.p. in the w/v annexed the surveyor’s report. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
On the basis of the pleadings of parties the following points are to be decided:
- Whether the complainant’s vehicle was insured with o.p.?
- Whether during the subsistence of the policy the vehicle was damaged?
- Whether the surveyor assessed the loss to the tune of Rs.25,000/-?
- Whether payment of the said money by o.p. caused any deficiency in service to the complainant?
- Whether the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of brevity and avoidance of repetition of facts.
Ld. lawyer for the complainant argued that the complainant purchased a vehicle being no.WB 25B 6030 and the said vehicle was insured with o.p. insurance company and the policy was issued by o.p. being policy no.3373/00342267/000/01 and the policy was in force from 30.4.12 to 29.4.13. The complainant paid a premium of Rs.28,964/-. During the subsistence of the policy the vehicle met with an accident on 30.4.12 and the people of the locality became agitated and damaged the vehicle in extensive manner. The said fact was informed to Barasat P.S. Because of the said damage the vehicle of the complainant was required to be repaired and after repairing of the said vehicle the complainant claimed the amount from o.p. The complainant was assured by o.p. that after repairing of the vehicle if the amount is claimed the same will be allowed by o.p. On the basis of the said assurance the complainant repaired the vehicle and submitted the claim. After receiving the claim of the complainant, the o.p. insurance company provided a cheque to the complainant to the tune of Rs.25,000/- which was returned to o.p. On the basis of the said fact the complainant filed this case praying for direction upon the o.p. for payment of the amount of Rs.60,000/- as well as other reliefs.
Ld. lawyer for the o.p. argued that the policy was issued in favour of the complainant in respect of the vehicle bearing regn. no.WB 25B 6030 (bus of root no.81). The complainant alleged that due to an accident on 30.4.12 the vehicle had been damaged. The o.p. appointed an IRDA licensed independent surveyor and the surveyor cum loss assessor opined that the admissible amount for the damage was Rs.25,000/- though the complainant claimed a sum of Rs.60,000/- towards the repairing of the vehicle. there was no deficiency in service and the liability of the insurance company is always subject to terms and conditions of the policy . the o.p. in the w/v annexed the surveyor’s report. On the basis of the said fact o.p. prayed for dismissal of the case.
Considering the submissions of the respective parties it is an admitted fact that the complainant had the policy with o.p. insurance company in respect of the vehicle bearing no.WB 25B 6030 and during the subsistence of the said policy an accident took place for which the vehicle was damaged extensively by the mob. The complainant informed the said fact at Barasat P.S., a GD Entry was made. It is also an admitted fact that due to the damage caused by the mob the extensive damage was made. It appears from the materials on record that bus root no.81 was damaged in extensive manner and the complainant in order to repair of the damaged portions sent the same to garage and after repairing the complainant submitted a bill of Rs.60,000/-. The o.p. has claimed that after the information received by o.p. a surveyor was appointed and he submitted report whereby he assessed the loss sustained in the said accident was to the tune of Rs.25,000/- and he recommended for payment of the same. The o.p. in order to substantiate the sad claim stated that the copy of the surveyor’s report was annexed as w/v and marked as annex-A. on perusal of the record particularly w/v we do not find any annexure made by o.p. in the w/v. It appears from the materials on record that the complainant in order to fortify the claim submitted the bills from the repairing centre that the vehicle was damaged and for repairing the complainant had to bear the expenses of Rs.60,000/-. It is undisputed fact that the vehicle was insured with o.p. insurance company at the relevant point of time and since the evidence of the complainant has remained unchallenged in respect of the expenses incurred by him for repairing of the vehicle, therefore we hold that the denial of the entire claim of the complainant was deficiency in service on the part of o.p. and the complainant will be entitled to get the relief as prayed for. Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.
Hence, ordered,
That the CC No.325/2013 is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. The o.p. is directed to pay the amount of Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand) only to the complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 30 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 8% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
